Digital Cable Choice; how critical is it?


I am a beleiver that analog cables play a big part in a system's sonic performance.

I am giving consideration to adding an external DAC to my system, for the first time. Always using a single box digital source, I have no experience with digital cables.

I really am a music guy & not a computer/techie guy. So, considering that the digital information that runs from the DAC to the Preamp is 1's & 0's or bits & bytes or whatever they are called; how critical is it to the sonic perfromance that I use an elaborate digital cable, as I have done with my analog interconnects?

Is the sound quality affected with the use of different cables, while still in the digital domain?

Your experience is appreciated
barrelchief
Hi Mike -- That's not a surprise. Glass Toslink has almost twice the bandwidth as plastic. But its practical length is still only 5 meters, while AT&T ST cable can go up to 100 Km between repeaters (for those REALLY large listening rooms ;--)

The real issue with Toslink (for audio, that is) the poor quality of the little transceiver units. They cost about $5 wholesale (STs cost about $120 wholesale) and the quality of their signal output is affected by end-to-end reflections in the cables (another reason to use glass if you can) and transmission jitter (glass won't help with that.)

It can't ever beat AT&T, but whether a glass Toslink connection would outperform a high quality coax (RCA) or aes/ebu (XLR) I really don't know. It would be easy enough to try though, because today, almost all stuff that has Toslink has coax inputs/outputs well.

Here's a little Toslink history if you're interested:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/toslink.php
.
Barrelchief, digital cable sonic difference = placebo effect = no measurable difference on recorded waveforms downstream of your dac. But they do look cool!
Oh forgot something I thought might be useful. Signal recording and analysis tools are getting reasonable in cost, very powerful and somewhat user friendly, certainly user friendly enough for a lot of serious audiophiles. For around $3000 you can get a complete data recording system (sans computer which you already have)and you can progress from wondering & parts replacing to knowing and making informed decisions. I recently bought a Dataq instruments model 730 for work, (I'm sure there are others that are equivalent, I have no tie to the vendor, just wanted to give an example). Three grand is a big chunck of change, but for folks who are heavy into the hobby I think it can save a whole lot of money and frustration in the long run and allow a better final end result. Data is good!
Some say that PC's make no difference.
Some say that digital IC's make no difference.
Like Dalton said; "Opinions Vary!"

In my experience, in moving (in a fairly resolving system with a good transport and DAC) from a well received but modestly priced IC (Apogee Wyde-Eye) to a much more expensive and widely acclaimed IC (Kimber Orchid), the comparative difference was very distinct and clearly distinguishable. In simple terms, I found the difference to be comparable to looking thru recently cleaned windows. Prior to cleaning they were not really dirty, but afterward they were REALLY clear.

It has also been carefully detailed by an AG member with impeccable credentials, that IC length can play a significant role.

As I have stated before, if you have not made the comparison yourself all you have is an uninformed opinion.
My experience is a lot like Jeffcott's. I have had Wyde Eye to Wireworld Gold Starlight and in between and my conclusion is the same as his. I would only want to add that digital cable _length_ made a big difference to my system and an audio pal's. We compared a 1m length of Wyde Eye to 1.5m and the longer length was incontestably better.